It would be easier to interpret Trump and the people connected to him as not having a grand corrupt strategy involving his various businesses, campaign, and personal connections if we didn’t have to keep finding out about these connections from everyone except for Trump and the people connected to him.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but ISTM that you may also be conflating two separate things.
Sater is not in the news for anything connected to money laundering. Sater sent some emails which indicated that the Trump organization was pursuing investments in Russia as late as January 2016.
Separately from that, someone in this thread speculated that Mueller would uncover evidence of money laundering involving the Trump organization. I don’t know what that specific poster had in mind, but these issues have been raised in the media and have generally involved allegations that Russian investors have bought Trump properties for the purpose of laundering dirty money. (From what I’ve seen, those suspicions seem to have been based the prices paid and the manner of financing.)
Sater isn’t in the news today for money laundering, but he’s been in the news before for money laundering:
But was that anything connected to Trump? (Your cites are behind paywalls.)
It sounds like Sater is an all round scoundrel of some sort.
Now you’re getting it. Why is the president friends with these scoundrels?
Don’t you know that poor Donny is being victimized by these awful people? They just flock around him to take advantage of his loving human nature and generous spirit.
Problem is that you’re still not getting it.
I don’t know why he’s friends with those scoundrels. Possibly because he has contact with an enormous number of people, possibly because he’s something of a scoundrel himself, possibly some other reason. Whatever.
The question I’m discussing at this time is whether he’s culpable in any money laundering. If you can’t separate that question from the broader question of whether Trump is a scoundrel or an all-purpose Bad Guy or whatever, I suggest you try it, just as a mental exercise if nothing else.
Trump has many, many “friends” who are unethical, or actually Russian mobsters. And yes, I believe that it will be shown that Trump is culpable in money laundering, as well as obstruction of justice. The only other option will be that Trump was a figurehead puppet, who had no knowledge of anything that was going on with his business.
And, again, can you explain why these contacts are never divulged until they are uncovered?
Well, a) my preferred method for answering such a question is to find an important investigator to investigate and report, but b) he hired a convicted money launderer as a Special Advisor and his casino, even back when he was running it, was fine for money laundering, and the project that Sater was most involved in - Trump SoHo - seems to have been a big outlet for money without much actual construction.
By no means is this a slam dunk, but I certainly wouldn’t say that Trump is just as likely to prove innocent of money laundering as your average dope dealer.
Google is your friend. Felix Sater is a long time business partner of Donald Trump. At one point he had an office in Trump Tower and was in charge of licensing Donald Trump’s name to real estate development in the NY area. He’s previously been connected with a pump & dump stock fraud. He flipped and informed on his various mafia associates to the FBI. He’s currently cooperating with a money laundering probe of some Kazakhstan oligarch.
He was one of the people involved in the Trump SoHo project. He shepherded the Trump kids around Moscow on some visits. He was also working on previous Trump-related real estate deal in Moscow, although that seems to have fallen through (it might have morphed into the Moscow Trump Tower deal that Michael Cohen was working on last year).
Felix Sater is not just a scoundrel. He’s been Donald Trump’s pet scoundrel for decades.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143736/trump-worry-felix-sater-cooperating-federal-investigators
On the upside, he’s kind of a Chatty Cathy. Oh - by the way, the guy who brokered the deal that saw Sater flip and become an FBI informant? That would be Andrew Weissmann … who is now working for Robert Mueller.
This seems relevant (Russian lobbyist testifies to Mueller grand jury):
*"Rinat Akhmetshin, the lobbyist and former Soviet army officer who met senior Trump campaign aides at a controversial meeting last year, has given evidence before a grand jury investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Mr Akhmetshin gave testimony under oath for several hours on Friday August 11, in a sign that special counsel Robert Mueller is looking at the 2016 meeting as part of his investigation into links between Donald Trump’s election campaign and Russia."
"Mr Akhmetshin set out details of the meeting, saying that Ms Veselnitskaya brought with her a dossier about “how bad money ended up in Manhattan and that money was put into supporting political campaigns”. He said that he briefly brought up US-Russia relations. "*
Also, this (Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe):
*
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes."*
State charges not pardonable.
Robert Mueller is working (and presumably sharing evidence) with the New York state Attorney General.
Interesting in itself, but most interesting is the possibility that state charges would prevent any possibility of the president’s pardon power coming into play to spare those on his team or the president himself.
I’m confused by this sentence, but it seems important. Is this saying that Veselnitskaya brought information about previous money laundering in Manhattan supporting potlitical campaigns, or is this saying that Veselnitskaya brought kompromat showing that she knew about Trump’s money laundering supporting his own political campaign?
She might have been implying that the had proof of “Hillary’s crimes”, which would have been music to their ears, especially if it involved foreign money in her campaigns.
Surprised the Russians didn’t think of it themselves. Set up a couple of useful idiots to take the fall, sneak a bunch of money into Hillary’s campaign coffers, leave plenty of fingerprints and wait to get caught. A mousetrap that catches cheese.
I’m guessing they had evidence of corruption and money laundering and were willing to share this evidence with people.
Yeah, but corruption by whom (or who. I can never figure that out.)? The word “Manhattan” in that sentence is awfully specific.
For what it’s worth, Benjamin Wittes, friend of Comey and someone who has previously demonstrated some inside knowledge of things to come, this morning posted to twitter:
“It’s going to be a long day. Buckle up.”
There has seemed to be a steady building to something this week.
This is becoming quite interesting. The state investigation is a very good sign- no pardoning possible (except of course by the governor). But- does this negate the value of providing immunity in exchange for testimony? Say the feds make a deal with Manafort to squeal on the orange rat. Now can he say “screw that, I won’t testify unless NY gives me immunity”?
No, it increases the value of immunity. Before, Manafort could’ve told Mueller to go screw if he thought Trump would pardon him.
Just shift pronouns. If you’d use the word ‘he’, it’s ‘who’, if you’d use the word ‘him’ it’s ‘whom.’ Although the use of ‘whom’ at all is waning.